- The Washington Times - Saturday, January 26, 2008

RICHMOND (AP) — The Senate rejected a bid yesterday to allow people already ordered to pay state abusive driver fees to go back to court and ask a judge to excuse the penalty.

The floor amendment by Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, Virginia Beach Republican, set up a partisan clash with the Senate’s majority Democrats over legislation to repeal the unpopular, punitive fees that took effect nearly seven months ago.

The amendment died on a 21-17 party-line vote, but another amendment — one that would make the bill effective the instant Gov. Tim Kaine signs it — was unanimously approved.

The General Assembly enacted the fees last year as part of the first major transportation funding package in a generation. When Virginians discovered last spring that surcharges of up to $3,000 that they would have to pay would not apply to nonresidents, they were livid. With last fall’s House and Senate elections approaching, legislators from both parties clamored for their swift repeal.

Any efforts to salvage the fees were effectively doomed earlier this month when Mr. Kaine, a Democrat, said they had failed either to make highways safer or come close to meeting revenue projections.



As the bill advances to a final Senate vote on Monday, it still lacks a provision for rebating fees already paid or excusing fees assessed by a court but not paid.

While Republicans and Democrats generally agree on some form of reimbursement, neither they nor legislative attorneys and policy analysts have agreed on a method they think is legal, Sen. R. Edward Houck, Spotsylvania Democrat, said in an interview.

“They’re still researching the relief piece of this,” said Mr. Houck, sponsor of the repeal bill. “It’s a technical, legal question, but there’s still time for cool, legal heads to agree on something in a nonpartisan way.”

A partisan divide was clear in yesterday’s edgy floor debate. Mr. Stolle, a lawyer who chaired the Senate Courts of Justice Committee when the Republican Party controlled the Senate last year, said the legislature can’t rescind a judicial order.

“Give me just one example where a court has ordered anyone to pay a fine or a fee and the state has come along afterward and said you don’t have to pay it,” Mr. Stolle said.

“That’s not the point,” countered Sen. Henry L. Marsh III, a Richmond lawyer and Democrat who succeeded Mr. Stolle as courts committee chairman. “The point is whether the state can refuse to collect a debt.”

Mr. Stolle also argued that some people — drunken drivers, those convicted of vehicular homicide — should have to pay the fees, something his amendment would have allowed.

“It would be terrible policy for the commonwealth to adopt a refund policy for people who got behind the wheel after drinking or who took the life of another,” he said.

Democrats claimed Mr. Stolle’s amendment would be burdensome because people would have to find time to go back to court, sometimes in a locality far from home, with an attorney in tow.

“This is another lawyer’s relief act, and we’ve got to reject it and move on,” said Sen. R. Creigh Deeds, Bath Democrat and a lawyer.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide